LEE v. PASS, CIV S-10-2220 GEB DAD P. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120214931
Visitors: 21
Filed: Feb. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2012
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On November 15, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a cognizable First Amendment claim. On January 5, 2012, the court ordered plaintiff to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss within thirty days. On January 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a letter with the court explaining that he does not have acces
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On November 15, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a cognizable First Amendment claim. On January 5, 2012, the court ordered plaintiff to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss within thirty days. On January 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a letter with the court explaining that he does not have access..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 15, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a cognizable First Amendment claim. On January 5, 2012, the court ordered plaintiff to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss within thirty days. On January 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a letter with the court explaining that he does not have access to his personal property and requesting a court order requiring prison officials to release his property. The court will deny plaintiff's request but will provide him with an extension of time to file his opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. If plaintiff requests any additional time in which to file his opposition to the pending motion, he must explain the steps he has taken to use the inmate grievance process to obtain his property and explain what specific property he requires in order to file his opposition.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's January 26, 2012 request for a court order requiring the release of his property (Doc. No. 31) is denied; and
2. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time and shall file his opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss within thirty days from the service of this order.
Source: Leagle
